House Speaker Mike Johnson describes himself as a Christian before anything else. He has said his “faith informs everything I do.” He has told people curious about his views to “pick up a Bible.” His wife reportedly runs a counseling service whose operating agreement, which he himself notarized, states, “We believe and the Bible teaches that any form of sexual immorality, such as adultery…is sinful and offensive to God.” He has said he and his son use a software program called Covenant Eyes to ensure neither is looking at porn.
Given all this, you may think that Johnson would not be comfortable showing up to a criminal trial to defend a guy who allegedly had an affair with an adult film star (according to the adult film star anyway, though Trump denies it), paid her to stay quiet about the alleged affair, and then was accused of covering up said payment. But you would think wrong!
On Tuesday, Johnson attended Donald Trump’s hush money trial in Manhattan, where—prior to the proceedings getting underway—the congressional leader nodded approvingly at Trump from behind a metal barrier, like a groupie at his favorite band’s concert.
Not accused. I thought the sex was already a forgone conclusion, which is why this is about the illegal payoff for her to keep it quiet
Defense tried to say that it never happened, which opened the door to Stormy telling the jury about what was effectively a rape by the defendant. They probably didn’t want to be arguing these facts, but that’s where they ended up!
They were put in a box by Trump’s refusal to admit any guilt, even for things that are not crimes.
Any normal defense attorney would admit the fact that their client cheated on their wife and tried to cover it up. Those are not illegal, and are pretty defamatory, so you can have the judge exclude any testimony about the act.
Then it’s just a boring documents case. The jury doesn’t pay as much attention when the evidence is less interesting, so the prosecution’s case seems weaker.
Stormy came out a few years ago though and admitted they never had sex. She also said that she wasn’t a victim and wasn’t a part of the “me too” crowd. If you’re watching the MSM though, you probably don’t know about that
Damn, she must have crumbled when Trump’s lawyers brought that up when cross-examining her. As far as the jury is concerned, that would be game over for the prosecution.
Trump’s lawyers did bring that up, didn’t they?
Here’s an article on it where Bill Mahr talks about it. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/bill-maher-dredges-up-2018-stormy-daniels-interview-that-totally-undermines-her-trump-trial-testimony/ar-BB1mgfe9
I’m not in the court room, just look it up. It’s on video and I have seen that
Or that didn’t happen and you think it did because you listen to and believe lying liars who lie.
Okay bud, whatever you say…
That’s not at all what the Maher article says. She said she wasn’t coerced, not that they didn’t have sex. It’s also not the point of the trial.
I never said that it was Mahr she said she didn’t have sex to. Word for word, this is the letter she signed in 2018.
What is the source of this?
It’s about falsifying business records although they still haven’t said what the actual crime was and Trump has always denied the sex allegations. Stormy even lost a defamation case against Trump and owes him 500k. The MSM tries to get you to think they slept together though
How do you think they just skipped the parts where they would state the actual alleged crimes? They in fact didn’t skip that part.
Alright then, what is the folony crime they’re claiming he committed?
It’s falsifying business records, which becomes a felony when combined with it being a campaign finance violation.
Not as strong of a case as the docs one but it is a crime.
Right, that’s why the FEC and Braggs office declined to prosecute the case already, and then wouldn’t ya know, campaign season rolls around and all the sudden it’s being prosecuted. I’m just not that naive. I see it for what it is although I do expect a guilty verdict to come and then to get overturned on appeal
Falsifying business records is an actual crime.
So what? Even if he did falsify them (which they failed to prove) statute of limitations already ran up. They’re trying to claim he falsified them to influence the outcome of the election but that’s impossible considering that they weren’t labeled as a legal expense until after the election was over. Facts matter
Moving the goalposts I see.